LONDON: Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to apologise for his comment that Islamabad is "exporting terror", said a government source who insisted that "he meant it".

Daily Mail quoted government sources as indicating that Cameron would not withdraw his suggestion that Pakistan was "exporting terror".

A government source said Cameron would not apologise for his outspoken remarks and added: "No, he said it and he meant it."

During his India visit, Cameron July 28 warned Pakistan against exporting terrorism to India, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.

Cameron said: "We want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan, but we cannot tolerate in any sense export of terrorism, whether to India, Afghanistan or anywhere in the world."

Pakistan reacted last week by cancelling a meeting on terrorism co-operation.

On Sunday, a British Labour MP said the comment were "inflaming" opinion among British Muslims.

"A lot of people of Pakistan origin are hugely inflamed by this. They feel their country of origin has been criticised for no reason other than point scoring. He (Cameron) is just trying to curry favour with the Indians," Labour MP Khalid Mahmood was quoted as saying.

Pakistan's Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira told reporters that President Asif Ali Zardari would present Cameron with "the facts on the ground" during their Friday meeting.

"The president of Pakistan will explain and have a dialogue and good discussion and he will explain the facts to the new Government over here. We hope that the new leadership over here, when they get the exact picture, will agree with us."

The British High Commissioner has been summoned to meet Pakistan's foreign minister as the effects of David Cameron's remarks on terrorism continue to be felt.

Adam Thomson will meet Shah Mehmood Qureshi after David Cameron said he would not apologise for his comments about Pakistan exporting terrorism when he meets the countryâ€™s president for talks this week.
Relations between London and Islamabad soured last week when Mr Cameron said Pakistan could not be permitted to "look both ways" in promoting the export of terror while publicly working for stability in the region.His comments were made in India, which added to the negative reaction across the border.
President Asif Ali Zardari has been facing pressure to cancel the talks with Mr Cameron at Chequers, which he has so far resisted.
Last Wednesday, while In Bangalore, Mr Cameron said: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country [Pakistan] is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said the high commissioner and Pakistan foreign minister had covered a "broad range of issues".
"They discussed a broad range of issues including preparations for President Zardari's visit," she said.
Asked if Mr Cameron would be apologising for his previous remarks, the spokeswoman replied: "He stands by the comments he made."
She added that Mr Thomson had conveyed the PM's condolences over the floods that struck Pakistan, killing an estimated 1,100 people.
Mr Cameron made his comments after the leak of more than 90,000 secret US files which detailed alleged links between Pakistan's intelligence services and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, which has long been a source of concern in the West.
Bombers linked to the Taliban and al-Qaeda have killed more than 3,500 people in a three-year campaign of attacks across Pakistan, which claims to be as much a victim of terrorism as any other country.
Pakistan's military also led major campaigns against homegrown Taliban in South Waziristan and the Swat valley last year, earning plaudits from the West.
But the New York Times said some 92,000 classified documents released by the WikiLeaks website showed Pakistani agents and Taliban met "in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."
When asked on BBC radio whether the row would be put to rest when Zardari visits Britain, Pakistan's Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said "hopefully" and that he would talk to Britain's Prime Minister directly on the matter.
Pakistan as a country felt "hurt" over Mr Cameron's comments, he said.
Newspapers in Pakistan have lashed out against Cameron, but comment was muted by twin tragedies of Pakistan's worst aviation disaster that killed 152 people on Wednesday and floods that have killed 1,200.
The English-language newspaper The Nation called on Zardari to cancel his visit to Britain, saying "mere words will not suffice as the British have simply gone too far and at the very least some symbolic action is required".
President Zardari is scheduled to hold a summit with Mr Cameron at Chequers, the prime minister's country retreat, on Friday during a three-day visit to Britain.
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) pulled out of a visit to discuss counter-terrorism co-operation with British security services.
David Miliband, the shadow foreign secretary, stepped up his attack on Mr Cameron yesterday, saying he should have recognised Pakistanâ€™s suffering at the hands of terrorists and its democratic progress over recent years, rather than highlighting allegations of covert support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
On Saturday, Mr Zardari is expected at a rally of his governing Pakistan Peopleâ€™s Party (PPP) in Birmingham, where, according to reports in his homeland, he is planning to launch the political career of his son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
The 21-year-old, who completed a history degree at Christ Church, Oxford, in June, has been under special protection by Thames Valley police since the assassination of his mother, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistanâ€™s former prime minister, in December, 2007. He was appointed the PPPâ€™s nominal president a few days after his motherâ€™s murder.

The British Prime Minister David Cameron has invented a new diplomacy - go to one country and criticise another.

In Turkey he accused Israel of allowing Gaza to become a "prison camp" and in the United States he downgraded his own country to that of a "junior partner".

Those remarks will have their own effects - the first pleasing in Turkey, displeasing in Israel, and the second an overdue recognition of reality, perhaps.

It is his comment about Pakistan in India that has caused the real stir.

In telling an Indian audience that "we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that [Pakistan] is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror" he trod on, to say the least, delicate territory.

Some would say he blundered. The former British foreign secretary, David Miliband, says there is a difference between being a straight talker and a "loudmouth" and that Mr Cameron ignored the position of Pakistan itself as a target for Taliban terror.

Mr Cameron says he was speaking plainly.

But the incident has led to the cancellation of a visit to Britain of senior Pakistani intelligence officials and made the comments, rather than the potential for cooperation, the central talking point of a visit to London by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari this week.

Play both sides?
What David Cameron said was not particularly new or revealing. It was why, when and where he spoke that was interesting.

American and British officials have for long claimed that Pakistan, through its intelligence agency the ISI, has acted ambivalently.

The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said of the Pakistanis last year "to a certain extent, they play both sides".

A paper, written by a senior officer at the British Defence Academy in 2006, claimed: "Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq."

The recent Wikileaks revelations of operational documents from the Afghan war appear to show evidence, or at least beliefs, that ISI agents helped the Taliban.

One report alleges that they helped develop a network of suicide bombers in 2006.

Another claims that the ISI wanted to use a remote-controlled bomb disguised as a golden Koran to assassinate President Karzai. These reports of course cannot be substantiated.

Kashmir connection
t is said that the ISI has maintained the links it developed with the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan since the anti-Soviet days and has not acted strongly against Pakistani groups which used violence - including attacks such as the one in Mumbai in 2008 - to further their cause of Indian withdrawal from Kashmir.

What Mr Cameron did not say was that Pakistan seems to have realised that it too is now vulnerable to the Taliban.

It has suffered numerous suicide-bomb attacks and has in response turned its army loose in the insurgent-controlled regions along the Afghan border.

The Kashmir connection is vital for the UK as it provides one of the motivations for radical thinking among young Islamists in Britain.

Indeed, the Indians are so sensitive about any mention of Kashmir by foreign governments that they jump on any criticism, open or implied.

The then British foreign secretary Robin Cook found that out in 1997 when he simply mentioned that Britain would mediate if asked by both sides and the Indians were furious at him for even raising the issue.

One side-effect of Mr Cameron's new opening to India is that any such criticism by Britain of India over Kashmir will now be suppressed and in fact we saw the opposite - criticism of Pakistan.

Which raises the point - do you further your diplomatic aims by openness or by discretion?

Sometimes you are bold, of course. Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan did not further their aims of ending communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by being discreet.

Mr Cameron also chose, in this case, to be open.

It will be interesting to see if he continues this approach to diplomacy as his prime ministry develops.

Cameron based his comment on Wiki leaks linking ISI with terror which are totally unsubstantiated first reports collected by Afghan intelligence which is unreliable to say the least. He knows he has the luxury to take pot shots at Pakistan and still get help from Islamabad in US's name.

I would have appreciated if Cameron made this accusation in Britain or in Pakistan if he wanted to go public on it to pressurize Pakistan. Surely he belittled his once great nation by choosing a third country and that too a country which is the biggest enemy of Pakistan. This was uncalled for and most Pakistanis will consider him as ganging up on Pakistan.:happy_2:

Some analysts are saying that he has made this anti Pakistan statement on Obama's behest which is interesting news. If this is true them Obama is better off for it because the anti American sentiments amongst the Pakistanis will be diluted with the anti Britain sentiments . As a Pakistani I know that the Pakistanis had a soft corner in their hearts for Britain.

There is a saying in Urdu which translated in English says that he cut the tree which provided shade to him, which is what Cameron has effectively done. Britain has pre empted so many terror attacks on its soil with ISI's help.

As for the aid to Pakistan is concerned the world should understand its dynamics. Pakistan's economy has lost 60 billion dollars since the US invasion of Afghanistan. America has given the country 11 billion aid during this time. Pakistan is being strangulated in this way and whipped to do more.

A large majority of Pakistanis believe that the internal terrorism in their country is being stoked by US and co as well as India again to pressurize Pakistan to do more in this war on terror. After all its simple logic that an extremist Muslim group will not attack mosques,Shrines and Islamic universities.(Damn you CIA-RAW-Mossad brigade.):happy_2:

I wonder why Cameron's plain talking did not include the curfew and the killings of stone throwing teenagers in Kashmir by India. The author is very right in pointing out that the core issue is Kashmir. Pakistan's main concern is to avoid having two hostile borders, as it is one hostile neighbour where Cameron made his unfortunate remarks is bad enough.

Of all the people in the world, America has the least right to talk about the radicalization of North west regions of Pakistan. Before the CIA arrived on scene in the eighties to defeat the Soviets, nobody in the North west regions had heard of klashnikov and heroine. Ten years later there were 120000 armed jihadis from twenty seven different countries in this area of Pakistan.

Cameron does not know how much more difficult he has made it for the Pakistan government to continue with its current unwarranted sacrifice as already it is walking on a tight rope between the Pakistani anti West sentiments and its foreign policy.

Its time that the world realises the enormous sacrifices Pakistan has made in the war on terror and stop pushing her to do more. Most Pakistanis do not want Pakistan to participate in a war which they widely regard as a US war.

Cameron surely did not base it on Wikileaks. I am sure the British PM does not bank on leaks to know what is up around the world, for after all, the British Intelligence is not moribund. However, the Wikileaks did add a leg to what he already knew and did not speak about earlier lest it compromised the British Intelligence work in Afghanistan as it has done to compromise the CIA and even their informers.

Too bad that the author is queasy that Cameron made not the accusation, but spoke the eternal truth in a â€˜third countryâ€™, namely India. Speaking the truth is hardly uncalled for! India is not the enemy of Pakistan, because Pakistan takes the honours. They are their own best enemies which they fail to fathom steeped in their misplaced megalomania, the cheer leader being good old Kiyani, who is the clever chap who is the actual power behind the throne! One hardly has to gang up against the terrorist gangsters of Pakistan!

If indeed Cameron was acting as the mouthpiece of Obama, then kudos to both for speaking out with clarity the truth that was so well known and which for political correctness, they avoided earlier to enunciate. Neither Obama nor Cameron care a tuppence or a nickel as to whether it whips up anti Americanism or anti British sentiments. The day Pakistanis have a soft corner for anyone but the Taliban, that will be the day. Soft soaping that the Pakistanis adore Britain will not sell since enough of Pakistanis or Pak trained terrorists have done much damage to Britain. Indeed, ISI must have helped British counter intelligence with information; after all, the terrorists are ISI trained and organised. If the ISI does not know, then who does?

Pakistan could have lost $60 million provided it had that type of money. A failed state that begs the US, IMF, WB, GB, UAE and Saudi Arabia to keep afloat is hardly using its own money! A crow masquerading as a peacock!

Indeed Pakistan is being strangulated and being asked to do more. The Taliban is strangulating Pakistan and the others are only pointing Pakistanâ€™s nose in the right direction. If that is wrong, then let Pakistan stew in its own soup! India and the US have better things to do that stoking terrorism in Pakistan. Such a thought does not gel since it means that the Taliban who swear by the ummah are actually being disloyal to the Faith and to the concept. That surely is not credible since it would go counter to the idea that Muslims are pious and care for each other. Fine, Sunnis battle Shiais, but then the Taliban is Sunni and surely they would not listen to the bidding of infidels (kaffirs) to kill Sunnis who are the majority in Pakistan! It is another daydream that Muslims will not attack mosques, Shrines and Islamic universities. What happened in Mecca? On November 20, 1979 there was the takeover of the Grand Mosque by Juhayman al-Oteibi and his 400-plus fundamentalists. The ritualistic trotting of the excuse that they were not true Muslims is as bogus as denying the reality of the fact that Muslims seized the most holy Mecca Mosque! Therefore, the canard that Muslims will not attack mosques, shrines or Muslim universities does not hold! Utter humbug to say the least.

In so far as the stone throwing and the chaos in Kashmir, the transcript aired on the TV channels clearly indicate the Pakistani hand via their handmaiden Geelani. So, Cameron would have made it even harsher for Pakistan by telling the truth and that is why he did not speak of Kashmir!

Pakistan requires to not having two hostile borders. However, the author though glib and clever by half, fails to realise that these two hostile borders are its own creation! So why weep? If Pakistan quit trying to be cute and wake up to reality, then it will have no hostile borders to worry about!

NWFP has a flourishing arms industry (home manufacturing). It did not require the US to teach them about Kalashnikovs! If indeed the US is responsible for flowering of the Mujahideens through Pakistan, then it proves once again that Pakistan is hardly a sovereign nation and instead is ready to be a vassal and lackey of the highest bidder!

If there were 120000 terrorists from 27 countries in Pakistan, then it indicates what a weak country Pakistan is and how it can be manipulated by dreamers! It would be only a fool who feels that if Pakistan did not actively encourage them, then they could not have entered Pakistan or flourished. The writer takes the readers to be imbecilic and brain dead if he hopes that any sane person will buy this line!

What sacrifice has Pakistan made? Taking on their own home grown terrorists? If Pakistan does not eliminate them, then they will eliminate Pakistan. Frankenstein strikes! If Pakistan feels that they have to toe their peopleâ€™s line, then they should not toe the Westâ€™s line. One cannot have a schizophrenic foreign policy where they move out with the begging bowl to the West and yet at the same time be the standard bearer of fundamentalist Islamists. One canâ€™t hunt with the hounds and run with the hares!

It is time that the world realise that there is no enormous sacrifice Pakistan is doing. They have to make up their minds as to who they are with â€“ the free world which is against terrorism or with fundamentalist terrorists. And anyway, if their soldiers are being killed, they have only their hero Zia to blame and not the West! Further, if they donâ€™t eliminate the terrorist that they have fostered, the terrorists will eliminate the concept of Pakistan, mentally and physically.

If most Pakistanis donâ€™t want to participate in the war on terrorism, they are welcome. Only thing is that Pakistan will become history!

I still don't get it
Pakistan is the one suffering from terrorism badly and whole world label us as terrorists

Click to expand...

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
George Santayana

if anything your Nizam (government) should have larnt from the example of Iraq, Saddam Hussain and the first gulf war. Uncle Sam used your country as a proxy during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But at that time your mercenary army and the ISI was on cloud 9 with all the attention it was getting. I feel sorry for the good people of Pakistan and it is unfortunate that they suffer the consequences of policies initiated by their feudal Armed Forces in the past.

I still don't get it
Pakistan is the one suffering from terrorism badly and whole world label us as terrorists

Click to expand...

How are they mutually exclusive?

You can be victims of terrorism, and yet perpetrate terrorism in other countries. 7/7, the attempted New York bombings, the three days of utter chaos and carnage in Mumbai, the recognition, by countries in the EU, of cross-border terrorism sponsored in Kashmir, the operation of Rigi-associates and the Jundullah and Haqqani-network across borders in Balochistan and Afghanistan- have all served to further the point.

You can understand why we will never forget those three days of misery, pain and utter destruction in Nov. 2008.

None of these can survive without some state-complicity. The war in Afghanistan has gone on for, what, ten years now? Yet we still hear the same plea of <Pakistan's doing all it can>. There is a clock to the world's patience, and a perception that religious-based terrorism is growing ever more potent.

^^By allowing all alphabet soup Jihadi networks to train in Pakistan. Mumbai 26/11, London 7/11 bomb blasts, recent attempt on bomb blast in NYsquare by Faizal Shehzad, attempt to blow-up Dragonmart in Dubai, Bomb plot in NY subway and manchester, bomb blasts on Trains in Spain, attempt to kill cartoonist in Denmark, attacks/bomb blasts in Afghanistan and many more have links to Pakistani nationals and Pakistan terror tanjeems.

Pakistan first tried to spoil UK PM's visit in jealousy by picking an Issue which is a generalized comment associated with Pakistan these days (it was never specifically defaming GoP, ISI or Army establishment). They thought they will be able to bully UK on this as UK is more open and compressible political society back home (as compare to US who can on face tell them that they are protecting Osama) by casting doubts and rows on this issue. But now since this new young animated PM is refusing to bend they are trying to everything to save their face aggressively.